Willis A. Smith v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Willis A. Smith v. United States

389 F.2d 564

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1968

Docket20949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 F.2d 564 (Willis A. Smith v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willis A. Smith v. United States, 389 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In this narcotics conviction here on appeal, we have one substantial issue: Was there reversible error in the trial court’s denial of a motion for a bill of particulars? Smith wanted a bill telling him the name of the government’s informer.

In the context of this case, he was entitled to know, although it is not every case where the information must be given. Aguilar v. United States, 9 Cir., 363 F.2d 379. However, two days before trial, the government advised defense counsel of the name of the informer. The informer was called by the defense and testified. Much of the informer’s testimony was favorable to the defendant. How in the sequence there was any prejudice, one cannot find. We find no offense to Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639. See Sorren-tino v. United States, 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 627, and Sartain v. United States, 9 Cir., 303 F.2d 859.

Error is asserted in failure to grant a continuance. We can’t find that it was ever requested. Requests for recesses were granted.

We find no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the instructions.

The contention of lack of competent counsel at trial is without merit. We cannot say that the representation was a mockery. In fact, we agree with the trial judge that the defendant was well represented. The frequency of this charge on appeals does point out the occupational hazard of defending such cases as this.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In this narcotics conviction here on appeal, we have one substantial issue: Was there reversible error in the trial court’s denial of a motion for a bill of particulars? Smith wanted a bill telling him the name of the government’s informer.

In the context of this case, he was entitled to know, although it is not every case where the information must be given. Aguilar v. United States, 9 Cir., 363 F.2d 379. However, two days before trial, the government advised defense counsel of the name of the informer. The informer was called by the defense and testified. Much of the informer’s testimony was favorable to the defendant. How in the sequence there was any prejudice, one cannot find. We find no offense to Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639. See Sorren-tino v. United States, 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 627, and Sartain v. United States, 9 Cir., 303 F.2d 859.

Error is asserted in failure to grant a continuance. We can’t find that it was ever requested. Requests for recesses were granted.

We find no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the instructions.

The contention of lack of competent counsel at trial is without merit. We cannot say that the representation was a mockery. In fact, we agree with the trial judge that the defendant was well represented. The frequency of this charge on appeals does point out the occupational hazard of defending such cases as this.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 F.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-a-smith-v-united-states-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack